Colored coins might be possible but a smart contract would still be required. I wouldn't use an ethereum token because I don't want to go down that path and confuse users with ethereums.

Great. Let me explain myself. Global equity markets are going to slowly transition onto public blockchains. It’s going to start this year. We need to be able to offer equity instruments (eg shares) on Bitcoin or a side chain or second layer. If we don’t, another public blockchain will fill the hole.

The Gibraltar Stock Exchange will probably be the first to offer regulated securities on a public blockchain. Others will follow quickly. Eventually LSE, NYSE etc will see the writing on the wall.

I don't follow. Suddenly altcoins are a thing? They are so easy to rekt. And the current contenders are full of vulnerabilities.

Shares on a public blockchain are going to be a thing. Real shares. Like Apple and Amazon and even Berkshire Hathaway. Not this pretend kindergarten shit we have had so far.

But Bitcoin needs a way to record and transfer these shares. Like colored coins. There are a bunch of contenders for which public blockchain will win. It will not be Ripple or Stellar. ETH is the obvious threat but they have their own problems right now.

Shares on a public blockchain are going to be a thing. Real shares. Like Apple and Amazon and even Berkshire Hathaway. Not this pretend kindergarten shit we have had so far.

But Bitcoin needs a way to record and transfer these shares. Like colored coins.

I donno, a lot of legislation would need to change for that happen. Maybe I could envision one blockchain controlled by notaries where they would register property transfers... but not a P2P real estate blockchain with no authrorized third party involvement needed.

Shares on a public blockchain are going to be a thing. Real shares. Like Apple and Amazon and even Berkshire Hathaway. Not this pretend kindergarten shit we have had so far.

But Bitcoin needs a way to record and transfer these shares. Like colored coins.

I donno, a lot of legislation would need to change for that happen. Maybe I could envision one blockchain controlled by notaries where they would register property transfers... but not a P2P real estate blockchain with no authrorized third party involvement needed.

Shares on a public blockchain are going to be a thing. Real shares. Like Apple and Amazon and even Berkshire Hathaway. Not this pretend kindergarten shit we have had so far.

But Bitcoin needs a way to record and transfer these shares. Like colored coins.

I donno, a lot of legislation would need to change for that happen. Maybe I could envision one blockchain controlled by notaries where they would register property transfers... but not a P2P real estate blockchain with no authrorized third party involvement needed.

companies will make their own coin and shares will be tied to this

But that needs to be authorized/recognized on a higher state/legal level. Otherwise public property registers are the only valid reference, no matter what ANY "blockchain" says.

Shares on a public blockchain are going to be a thing. Real shares. Like Apple and Amazon and even Berkshire Hathaway. Not this pretend kindergarten shit we have had so far.

But Bitcoin needs a way to record and transfer these shares. Like colored coins. There are a bunch of contenders for which public blockchain will win. It will not be Ripple or Stellar. ETH is the obvious threat but they have their own problems right now.

This is inevitably going to happen in one form or another and it's why I'm pretty much a perma bull from a strictly financial perspective. Believing in it (decentralization of power) as a good cause is one thing and that's what got me interested initially. But I wouldn't be going nearly all in if I didn't believe in a very high probability of disruption in the financial markets, and I only keep what I need to sustain myself for the next 5-10 years in fiat.I just can not see equities not moving into the crypto space within the next decade or two. Traditional brokerages are expensive, inefficient, and annoying.

And then there's venture capital, which the average pleb never had access to before Bitcorn. Kickstarter et. al. were one attempt to change up the VC scene, but they were a massive failure (from a zoomed-out perspective, I'm sure the founders are quite happy). The next wave of crowd-finance had insane fees to the website. And now ICOs cut the middle man out entirely.So as the market matures and we start seeing some better screening and perhaps escrowed funds that get released in batches based on certain conditions (perhaps via smart contracts) we're bound to not only see an increase in financially literate people, but also an increase in businesses.Paired with all the other stuff that is going on and coming up in the coming years we're bound to see quite a clusterfuck of interesting things springing up everywhere in a fashion that would put the last decades to shame (if one ignored the fact that they were necessary to get here in the first place).

That being said, I think there's enough space for multiple corns in the field, so I don't consider ETH or other chains as a threat, but rather as a healthy driving force of technological progress and mass adoption. At least I can't deny that the hopes of "getting rich quick by buying the next Bitcorn" didn't contribute to the increase in recent interest, and will do so in the future. Gotta be thankful for everybody who gets hooked on Bitcorn, regardless of how they got into it.

I guess the point is what the company involved says, supported by the law. If the law supports a blockchain shareholders register, then the Blockchain rules, also in court. Frankly, I do not see why this simple flat ledger technology will not blow regular exchanges out of the water over time (especially when Digital ID has been sorted out to the satisfaction of authorities).

Shares on a public blockchain are going to be a thing. Real shares. Like Apple and Amazon and even Berkshire Hathaway. Not this pretend kindergarten shit we have had so far.

But Bitcoin needs a way to record and transfer these shares. Like colored coins. There are a bunch of contenders for which public blockchain will win. It will not be Ripple or Stellar. ETH is the obvious threat but they have their own problems right now.

Shares on a public blockchain are going to be a thing. Real shares. Like Apple and Amazon and even Berkshire Hathaway. Not this pretend kindergarten shit we have had so far.

But Bitcoin needs a way to record and transfer these shares. Like colored coins.

I donno, a lot of legislation would need to change for that happen. Maybe I could envision one blockchain controlled by notaries where they would register property transfers... but not a P2P real estate blockchain with no authrorized third party involvement needed.

companies will make their own coin and shares will be tied to this

But that needs to be authorized/recognized on a higher state/legal level. Otherwise public property registers are the only valid reference, no matter what ANY "blockchain" says.

Legislation follows. If there's an economic incentive for using a blockchain it will be used, and legislation will follow along.

This is ridiculous. The concept of the "longest chain" only has a meaning considering the same difficulty. When you change that (at that point we are talking about a completely different thing longest or not) you can easily get a longer chain with ANY PoW you want. That's exactly what Bcash did, and now it doesn't matter how long they get, because they are using a lower diffculty and... a smaller accumulated proof of work.

It's obvious that Satoshi thought about all this when he repeated the definition several times, including: "The longest chain which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it" in section 4.

He had hard-forks in consideration, so the only thing that he thought of worthy differentiating between forks is what he stated above. There's no other way to be sure which chain is Bitcoin.

Satoshi also envisioned that miners would attack the contentious fork with the shortest chain and least PoW and kill it off. But that didn't happen. Because he didn't anticipate that mega miners would contentiously fork and collude to keep said fork alive (along side the main chain), and for selfish or malicious reasons. And then brokers and exchanges decide to help keep it alive as well.

Once this happened, all of the dogma of Satoshi's vision in his whitepaper got nullified. All bets are off, Katie bar the door, the end users now have the power to decide what is Bitcoin. Mega miners have fucked themselves as potential bad actors in the system. Brokers and exchanges have also now made themselves suspect.

This is ridiculous. The concept of the "longest chain" only has a meaning considering the same difficulty. When you change that (at that point we are talking about a completely different thing longest or not) you can easily get a longer chain with ANY PoW you want. That's exactly what Bcash did, and now it doesn't matter how long they get, because they are using a lower diffculty and... a smaller accumulated proof of work.

It's obvious that Satoshi thought about all this when he repeated the definition several times, including: "The longest chain which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it" in section 4.

He had hard-forks in consideration, so the only thing that he thought of worthy differentiating between forks is what he stated above. There's no other way to be sure which chain is Bitcoin.

Satoshi also envisioned that miners would attack the contentious fork with the shortest chain and least PoW and kill it off. But that didn't happen. Because he didn't anticipate that miners would contentiously fork and collude to keep said fork alive (along side the main chain), and for selfish or malicious reasons.

Once this happened, all of the dogma of Satoshi's vision in his whitepaper got nullified. All bets are off, Katie bar the door, the end users now have the power to decide what is Bitcoin. Mega miners have fucked themselves as potential bad actors in the system.

I'd personally go with any other altcorn before I'd pick up BCash if BTC magically disappeared over night.

in some earlier posts on this thread about the number of cases where the father is not the biological father of the child there were extraordinary numbers quoted.

It is around 1.8% in new Zealand and likely to be close to that in many countries - amuch lower percenatge than other quoted but still a fairly large number when you count them in groups eg children currently 0-15.

Under some circumstances fathers who find out are entitled to refunds of child support/custody payments.

I'd personally go with any other altcorn before I'd pick up BCash if BTC magically disappeared over night.

Same. Or I'd just sell everything and consider the grand experiment a complete failure.

The latter would depend on the overall situation for me. I'm not going to stop investing at any point in my life, so the only way I'd stop being involved with cryptocorns would be if they disappeared or collectively turned into BCash.

Shares on a public blockchain are going to be a thing. Real shares. Like Apple and Amazon and even Berkshire Hathaway. Not this pretend kindergarten shit we have had so far.

But Bitcoin needs a way to record and transfer these shares. Like colored coins. There are a bunch of contenders for which public blockchain will win. It will not be Ripple or Stellar. ETH is the obvious threat but they have their own problems right now.

Do you mean all the ICO's and erc20 stuff from basically 2017?

Yes.

The legislation to support the changes is coming. It will start in the smaller, more agile countries and spread into places like the US.

The NYSE will be on a public blockchain, hopefully Bitcoin, within 10 years.